Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Franck Guerrero
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“So should his entire Bridge life be based on that he was a cheater at one time?”

yes, it should.
Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“ I would like to see detailed comments from Michael R., Steve W .,Jason F.”

Indeed, as well as from Mike P. himself, as he is still a member of BW, maybe he could explain if the motivations were the same as the german doctor ones.
Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
one could still earn his living either by doing another job or keeping the same job but cheating in another country no ?
Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
euh … is this really the same guy having written that : http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/cheating-in-bali/?cj=108630#c108630 ?

if so, there could be a chance to see France or Poland world champions in Bali ?

and probation, really ? what about life suspension and go find another game to cheat at ?

Edited:
And what about his BW account ? still prefer having someone like Dean as a member of this community instead of a cheater..
Aug. 17, 2015
Franck Guerrero edited this comment Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Barry Goren said:
“Your point? or is it just a really bad attempt at sarcasm ? ”

Hopefully, it was a really good sarcasm, and the point was to avoid violating BW guidelines with an inappropriate tone and answer ?
July 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
deleted - wrong place
July 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@David

OK but then what would you bid with quite the same hands having and values inverted, e.g.,

AQxx
x
AQJxx
xxx

or

KQJ
xx
AQxxx
xxx

how do you ask if partner stops s ?
June 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not a 2/1 specialist but if 3 is always a 3-card raise, what would you bid over 3 with:

xxx
x
AQJxx
AQxx

or

Jx
xx
AQxxx
KQJx

especially at matchpoints scoring ?

does 3 promise extras causing the responder to bypass 3NT ?
June 29, 2015
Franck Guerrero edited this comment June 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Abstain because I don't know what are the follow-up if responder wants to play 3NT without a stopper.
Within my partnership 3 shows either a fit or a lack of stopper. Opener should then bid 3NT if he has a stopper, further bidding by responder would guarantee the fit.


Edited
June 29, 2015
Franck Guerrero edited this comment June 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was just wondering what the 1 bidders would do over a 2NT (18-19 balanced) rebid of the opener…
June 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 over 1NT would be non-forcing, sorry I should have precised that in the OP
June 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
indeed, bidding here was automatic for me but had to ask anyway…
June 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double 2 extends the ping pong to all 1x 1y 1z auction, ping pong is restricted to z=NT.
1 - 1 - 1 - 2, is a relay to 2 in double 2 and it is not related to 2 ping-pong.
June 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob,

sorry it seems I misunderstood your previous comments.
With east hand fixed, it is much more easier and I can do that now. (No constraints on south and west, it will just give the number of tricks East hand takes when north opens 3.

Edited:
Here it is for 2500 deals:

Tricks taken by East hand in NT after a 3 opening :

5 or less ::::::::::::> 3.9%
6 ::::::::::::::::::::> 6.8%
7 ::::::::::::::::::::> 9.3%
8 ::::::::::::::::::::> 13.4%
9 or more ::::::::::::> 66.6%

that 3NT bid looks like a percentage action even if that 66.6 figure is kind of frightening:-)

April 16, 2015
Franck Guerrero edited this comment April 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Aviv,

no, as I didn't constrain south hand. I had no time for that and wanted just to have a raw and quick idea of what was the best action as I felt reopening with W was clear.

For constraining south hand, we would have to consider hands that bid game and hands that continue the preempt, and I don't think the parameters to decide this are the easiest ones to determine…

Yes I'm lazy :-)
April 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob

I was more worried not by 3 going down but by reopening giving a chance to retrieve a game in NS.

I chose the easiest way for the parameters (kind of laziness ;) and i did it very quickly without much thought…). I could perform a simulation on East hand but with which hand E will bit 3NT ? To me, 3NT could be a brute force bid i.e. any balanced hand 16+ with stopper or a 7th card running suit with a stopper…

The hardest part of simulation is to well constrain the hands …
April 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just ran a quick simulation of 2500 deals with (very) basic parameters :
- North is 7s with at least 2 top H from 5, less than 10 HCP, no 4 card M
- East is either less than 17HCP, or less than 13HCP if single/void in or less than 13HCP if 5 of any suit
- No constraint on South

I didn't check all the cases but roughly :

- Game in ==> 19.84 %
- Game in while game in or NT ==> 2.2%
- Partial in ==> 22.12%
- Partial in while game in or NT ==> 6.48%
- 3 goes down ==> 58.04%
- 3 goes down while game in or NT ==> 31.76%

Results are double dummy so it may not reflect reality but it seems that reopening with W hand is not really the percentage action..
April 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I ran (quite) the same sim last night over 100.000 deals with double dummy solver.

To stick to the OP, I used the following parameters :

South:
- 14-16 HCP
- semi-balanced (i.e. no singles or voids, no 7 card suit)
- less than 4 cards in any major

North :
- 10-15 HCP
- 4 cards or 4 or both
- no single or void major

East:

- any hand except those containing 4+ with at least 2 top honors

Results with W hand from the OP:

K: 10.11%
J: 10.15%
9: 10.06%
5: 9.16%
4: 6.49%
5: 9.4%

Best: 17.99%

Results with W having 874 instead of Q74:

K: 9.84%
J: 9.98%
9: 9.39%
5: 8.62%
4: 9.25%
5: 7.97%

Best: 17.77%

Don't know if these results are really useful (as double dummy solving is quite rare at the table) but anyway it seems that overall lead is the winner :-)
April 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
None.

With or without screen, full disclosure is required.

However, IMO, it's easier to achieve with screens as you get rid of most of the blatant UI issues that are often discussed here.


March 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe I'm alerting too much then ;)
but typically I would alert such a 2NT bid as it would show for my partnership 2 places to play…
and if asked, I would disclose how I think my p would interpret my bid…or something like “undiscussed but should show xxx”
March 25, 2015
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
.

Bottom Home Top